Recommendations for prosecutions

The Commission must seek the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on whether any prosecution should be commenced. The DPP determines whether any criminal charges can be laid, and conducts all prosecutions. The Commission provides information on this website in relation to the status of prosecution recommendations and outcomes as advised by the DPP. The progress of matters is generally within the hands of the DPP. Accordingly, the Commission does not directly notify persons affected of advice received from the DPP or the progress of their matters generally.

The Commission is of the opinion that the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be obtained with respect to the prosecution of John Hacking for:

receiving corrupt commissions or rewards, which he knew would tend to influence him to show favour to Mr Homsey in relation to the affairs or business of the RFS, contrary to section 249B(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900, in respect of the payments he received from Scott Homsey between March 2012 and February 2015

by deception, dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from the RFS or causing a financial disadvantage to the RFS pursuant to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, in relation to representations he made to the RFS in respect of Mr Homsey’s snack pack invoices during the 2012–13 fire season

attempting to commit an offence against section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, in relation to documents he created for the purpose of issuing an order for 100,000 snack packs to Mr Homsey in August 2014, and for representations he made to the RFS when facilitating payment of Mr Homsey’s invoices against that order

larceny by a person in the public service under section 159 of the Crimes Act, in respect of the taking of mobile telephones and other electronic devices.

The Commission is of the opinion that consideration should be given to obtaining the advice of the DPP with respect to the prosecution of Scott Homsey for:

corruptly making payments to Mr Hacking, which he knew would tend to influence him to show favour to Mr Homsey in relation to the affairs or business of the RFS, contrary to section 249B(2)(b) of the Crimes Act, in respect of the payments he made to Mr Hacking between March 2012 and February 2015

attempting to obtain a financial advantage, or cause a financial disadvantage, by issuing false invoices to the RFS between September and December 2014, contrary to section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act

giving evidence that was false or misleading at a compulsory examination on 14 April 2015 regarding Gay Homsey’s knowledge of payments to Mr Hacking, contrary to section 87(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988

making false statements, or misleading or attempting to mislead, the Commission or an officer of the Commission, on 14 February 2015 regarding the payment of cash to Mr Hacking, contrary to section 80(c) of the ICAC Act.

The Commission is of the opinion that consideration should be given to obtaining the advice of the DPP with respect to the prosecution of Gay Homsey for:

aiding Mr Homsey to pay corrupt commissions or rewards to Mr Hacking, in respect of payments made between November 2014 and February 2015, contrary to section 249F(1) of the Crimes Act

giving evidence that was false or misleading at a compulsory examination on 14 April 2015 regarding her knowledge of payments to John Hacking, contrary to section 87(1) of the ICAC Act.

A brief of evidence was provided to the DPP on 20 January 2016.

Updates

Arthur John Hacking

On 7 June 2016, the DPP advised that there is sufficient evidence to charge Arthur John Hacking with:

14 offences of corruptly receiving a benefit, contrary to section 249B(1)(b) of the Crimes Act

2 offences of dishonestly making statements, contrary to section 192G(b) of the Crimes Act

1 offence of giving to the office of the NSW Rural Fire Service a document which was misleading in a material respect contrary to section 249C(1) of the Crimes Act

1 offence of dealing with proceeds of crime contrary to section 193B(1) of the Crimes Act

2 offences of wilfully making a false statement to an officer of the Independent Commission Against Corruption contrary to section 80(c) of the ICAC Act

3 offences of larceny by a person in the public service contrary to section 159 of the Crimes Act.

On 11 July 2016, court attendance notices were served on Mr Hacking. Mr Hacking entered pleas of guilty in relation to:

12 offences of corruptly receiving a benefit, contrary to section 249B(1)(b) of the Crimes Act

2 offences of larceny by a person in the public service contrary to section 159 of the Crimes Act.

The DPP withdrew two charges of corruptly receiving a benefit, contrary to section 249B(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, and one charge of dealing with proceeds of crime contrary to section 193B(1) of the Crimes Act.

On 25 August 2017, Mr Hacking was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of two years imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive corrections order pursuant to section 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 2009.

The following charges were placed on a Form 1 and taken into account on sentence:

2 offences of dishonestly making statements, contrary to section 192G(b) of the Crimes Act

1 offence of giving to the office of the NSW Rural Fire Service a document which was misleading in a material respect contrary to section 249C(1) of the Crimes Act

1 offence of larceny by a person in the public service contrary to section 159 of the Crimes Act.

The offences of willfully making a false statement to an officer of the Independent Commission Against Corruption contrary to section 80(c) of the ICAC Act were placed on a certificate under section 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and taken into account.

Scott Homsey and Gay Homsey

On 21 December 2017, the DPP advised that there is sufficient evidence to charge Scott Homsey with:

12 offences of corruptly giving a benefit, contrary to section 249B(2)(b) of the Crimes Act

3 offences of making a misleading statement with attempt to defraud, contrary to section 192G(b) of the Crimes Act

1 offence of giving misleading evidence in a Commission compulsory examination, contrary to section 87(1) of the ICAC Act

2 offences of wilfully making a false statement to a Commission officer, contrary to section 80(c) of the ICAC Act

1 offence of wilfully attempting to mislead a Commission officer, contrary to section 80(c) of the ICAC Act.

On 21 December 2017, the DPP advised that there is sufficient evidence to charge Gay Homsey with:

4 offences of being an accessory before the fact to corruptly giving a benefit, contrary to sections 249B(2)(b) and 346 of the Crimes Act

1 offence of giving misleading evidence in a Commission compulsory examination, contrary to section 87(1) of the ICAC Act.

On 19 January 2018, court attendance notices were served on Mr Homsey and Mrs Homsey. The matter has been adjourned for arraignment to the Sydney District Court on 25 January 2019.